2019 (11) TMI 1019 - HC - Customs

Court orders removal of alert on Importer Exporter Code via Mandamus, balancing parties' interests.

M/s. Boston Leather Exports Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (DBK), (XOS), The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Export)

The court granted the petitioner's request for Mandamus to remove the alert against their Importer Exporter Code in the Customs EDI System. The court ... Principles of natural justice - alert raised against the petitioner's Importer Exporter Code - Recovery of Duty Drawback - It is the specific case of the petitioner that neither the show cause notice nor the Order-in-Original was served on the petitioner before he got the same by way of application filed under Right to Information Act - Removal of alert made in the Customs EDI system - HELD THAT:- The above said claim made by the petitioner is not an issue to be considered in this case, as admittedly, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority against the said Order-in-Original and that he further filed a Revision before the Revisional Authority, aggrieved against the order passed in the Appellate Authority in dismissing the appeal - It is not in dispute that the said revision is still pending before the Revisional Authority to consider the claim made by the petitioner and pass orders on the same on merits and in accordance with law. Thus, this Court, is not expressing any view on the merits of the matter. Removal of alert made in the Customs EDI system - duty drawback - respondent is refusing to lift the alert only on the reason that the petitioner is yet to pay interest - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact that the liability of the petitioner to pay the duty drawback, penalty and interest has not attained its finality, as admittedly, the revision filed against the orders of Authority is still pending, this Court is of the view that the interest of both parties will be protected, if the following order is passed without prejudice to the contentions of both the parties before the Revisional Authorities. The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond for a sum of ₹ 4,06,988/- before the first respondent, representing the above said interest amount, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - On receipt of such personal bond, the respondents are directed to remove the alert, as exists against the petitioner in the Customs EDI System immediately. Petition disposed off. Issues:1. Mandamus sought to remove an alert against Importer Exporter Code.2. Allegation of lack of service of show cause notice and Order-in-Original.3. Dispute over the alert in the Customs EDI System.4. Pending revision application regarding duty drawback, penalty, and interest.5. Request to permit export due to existing alert.Detailed Analysis:1. The petitioner requested a Mandamus to direct the respondents to remove an alert against their Importer Exporter Code in the Customs EDI System. The petitioner, a regular exporter of finished leather, faced a show cause notice for not realizing sale proceeds of exported goods. The Order-in-Original confirmed a duty drawback amount and imposed a penalty without a personal hearing. The petitioner alleged non-receipt of the notice and order, learning about them through a bank debit. Despite realizing the sum mentioned in the order, the alert persisted, hindering export activities.2. The petitioner contended that they were not served the show cause notice or the Order-in-Original directly. The petitioner discovered the Order-in-Original through a bank communication. The petitioner's appeal against the order's dismissal for being untimely was pending, challenging the lack of personal hearing and service of documents. The petitioner's export operations were impeded due to the existing alert, affecting their business activities.3. The petitioner argued that the alert's continuation was unjustified since the duty drawback amount was already recovered. The respondents insisted on the alert due to outstanding interest payment. The court noted the pending revision application regarding the duty drawback, penalty, and interest, emphasizing the need for finality in determining the petitioner's liabilities. The court aimed to balance the interests of both parties by issuing a directive without precluding the ongoing revision process.4. The court acknowledged the Order-in-Original confirming the duty drawback amount and penalty, emphasizing the pending revision application's significance in resolving the petitioner's liabilities conclusively. The court refrained from delving into the merits of the case, focusing solely on the removal of the alert in the Customs EDI System. The court's decision aimed to safeguard the interests of both parties until the revision authority adjudicated the pending matters.5. The court's final directive required the petitioner to provide a personal bond representing the outstanding interest amount within a specified period. Upon the bond's submission, the respondents were instructed to promptly remove the alert from the Customs EDI System. The court concluded the judgment without imposing costs, ensuring the connected miscellaneous petition's closure. The ruling aimed to address the immediate issue of the alert while preserving the pending revision process's integrity.